Choosing a distribution

[Chris G]

On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:50:41PM -0700, Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote:
> Chris G spake thusly on 274023512 ::
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:59:48PM -0700, Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote:
> >> Chris G spake thusly:
> >>> I have been using Linux for many years, for the past two or three
> >>> years I have been using Slackware but recently have been looking for
> >>> something that's a bit easier to maintain and update.
> >>>
> >>> I've been using Fedora 7 for the past month or two and it provides
> >>> some of what I need but also has some disadvantages.
> >> I'm curious. what are it's disadvantages?
> >>
> > Mostly the 'continuous updates' philosophy, if you do 'yum update all'
> > at intervals (or accept the updates that automatic updating gives
> > you) then, among other things, the kernal will get changed quite
> > frequently and that forces a recompile of the Nvidia drivers and
> > Vmware - which doesn't always work .... so sometimes hassle.
> 
> From a desktop user perspective that's probably my fave thing about
> Fedora.  Fedora 8 is being released this week and if Firefox 3.0 were to
> be released in January, Fedora would add it (whereas Ubuntu and most
> others would not).
> 
> After I asked you this question it dawned on me that if I were in need
> of a server and wanted to go the RPM route I'd go with CentOS. It's very
> stable and you only see security updates.  And it has a lengthy support
> period. Fedora's is only a year from the date of release.
> 
> Although personally, I *generally* prefer Debian based distros.  But I'm
> an OS junkie, so I play with everything. :)
> 
> [...]
> >
> >>
> > I'd probably dispense with xdm/gdm/wdm, just leave the system to
> > default to init level 3 and run 'startx' to start X windows.
> 
> Aah, well I'm always running no less than GNOME *and* KDE so I find a
> display manager easier. But then I don't run servers, either.
> 
> Speaking of that, one might ask why have X at all if you're running a
> server?  I'd probably want X but most seen to find it unnecessary.
> 
It's my desktop machine as well as being a server - as in my home
desktop machine that is.  It isn't a heavily used server by any means
but it does have verious server functions:-

    It runs as a Samba server for our home network allowing my wife
    and I to share various files related to our small business (and
    making it easier to back them up off site).

    It runs as an Apache server for odds and sods of files for my own
    use and if I happen to want to put some pictures up for someone to
    see for example.  Access from the outside is limited to a few
    trusted IPs in the main.

    It runs sshd so I can log in and look at things from outside.

If the system dies for a while it's not a disaster but its server
functions are very useful.  However it is also my desktop machine so I
need X etc.

-- 
Chris Green